Happiness is impacted by health not just wealth says Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

The government’s new Growth Plan was billed as bold commitment to getting the economy moving. ­— Writes Erin McDaid, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

The driver for this plan is a belief that sustained economic growth is the best means to improve people’s standard of living, but this premise assumes that increased wealth will automatically enhance our quality of life.

In the midst of a cost of living crisis, I am hardly going to argue that there is no link between financial security and quality of life.

Without a decent income, access to safe, comfortable housing and sufficient income for basics such as food, heating and the clothes on our backs — quality of life will undoubtedly be poor.

However, the debate has been raging for years as to whether the traditional measure of standard of living, based on income, is the best possible metric for assessing the state, progress and prosperity of a nation.

As the old adage states, money cannot buy happiness.

We have all heard the stories of lottery winners who have ended up unhappy. Nevertheless, others would argue that money can undoubtedly help prevent many of the factors that might make us unhappy.

Happiness is also impacted by our health and environmental factors, including air pollution and access to natural green space.

So, choosing to measure happiness is not as frivolous as it might at first appear.

In 2010, the UK government became the first to officially measure the population’s happiness.

The average score for 2018, the latest figure I could find, was 7.54 out of ten. It would be interesting to see what our current score would be and what it might be in say five years after the impact of the government’s recent round of policy shifts filters through.

As many of us experienced during lockdown, we tend to take the simple things in life for granted. We also had time to consider and realise what was fundamentally important to us, what feeds our souls and sustains us beyond food, water and shelter.

For many, the value of nature and the environment around them came into sharp focus when they were limited in how they could experience and interact with it. This is why I am very worried about the government’s new focus on growth — and I am not alone.

I am not arguing against growth or efforts to raise people’s income and it is not my place to argue the economic case for or against the ‘trickle down’ school of economics. I am, though, very concerned that the drive for growth could become a drive for growth and any cost — including damage to the environment and negative impact on people’s quality of life.

Mooted measures such as Investment Zones sound entirely positive when framed in terms of job creation and driving inward investment. However, as they say, ‘the devil is in the detail’.

Until we see the detail, we have absolutely no guarantee that the flexibility and easing of red tape being touted to stimulate investment won’t result in weakening or removal of environmental safeguards or undermine people’s ability to have a say in what happens in their area — in their environment.

The government might argue that it had to be bold, had to do something radical to kick-start the economy. I would argue that a plan to deliver a happy, healthy population by really committing to decarbonising the economy and setting a course to restore nature and the natural systems would have been truly bold and radical.

We all know that this has to happen at some stage if we are to avert disaster.

By simply trying to compete with other nations for a slightly bigger slice of the traditional financial pie, we will continue underpinning a host of industries that exploit, rather than enhance, the planet we all rely on for our health, wealth, happiness and ultimately our survival.

Rather than continue down a potentially a route that might deliver short-term benefits but which could also prove self-destructive, why not set the UK on a different economic path?

Surely, it would make sense to continue to get ahead of the curve on green technologies; to plot a course which others will undoubtedly have to follow sooner or later?

This could provide a much more environmentally sustainable approach to generating inward investment and growth whilst helping slow environmental decline and helping put nature on the road to recovery.

Voice your concerns at nottinghamshirewildlife.org/defendnature